Imaginary Locomotives

[PhilJ W]

According to Alan Peck's "The GW at Swindon Works", Dean wrote to the electrical engineer, Crompton, in 1892 that he had been instructed by the Chairman to discuss the subject of electrical haulage through the Severn tunnel. It seems that Dean showed no enthusiasm for the idea - perhaps he saw it as another potential 'atmospheric railway' type of disaster - and the correspondence fizzled out.  Instead, Dean went on to build the 4-6-0 'Crocodile', to haul heavy freight trains though the tunnel.  But what if the line had been electrified.  What might a Victorian electric 'crocodile' have looked like?

 

There's an article in 'The Engineer' dated June 13th,1890 (I like to keep up to date with my reading), which discusses the potential for development of main line electric traction and suggests some design parameters. (see: http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/4/49/Er18900613.pdf ).  Crompton designed small 4-wheel locomotives for the London underground but these would be inadequate for main-line use.  The Engineer article suggests that a heavy six-coupled locomotive, with 6 foot diameter driving wheels, each directly driven by an electric motor, might provide sufficient adhesion and power for main-line haulage.  In view of the need for heavy freight working on the gradients in the tunnel, .then a double unit would seem appropriate, given the motor power available at the time. Six 150hp motors would provide 900hp and an overall weight of, perhaps, 70 tons, which should do the job fairly well.

 

Possibly, the biggest issue at that time would have been the design of the power station itself - a state-of-the-art requirement, to match the engineering of the tunnel itself.  It could also have been used to power electric pumps, anticipating the modifications eventually made in the 1960s.

 

So, I give you the Dean/Crompton electric 'crocodile':

 

GWR_DeanElectric 800x600.jpg

 

Mike

 

There is rather a different take on the appearance of these locomotives in the current edition of 'Back Track' showing a centre cab design based on the New York Central's 'bipolar gearless' design.

[MikeOxon]

There is rather a different take on the appearance of these locomotives in the current edition of 'Back Track' showing a centre cab design based on the New York Central's 'bipolar gearless' design.

Strange coincidence!  I don't like centre cab designs very much.  Mine has roots in a Pennsylvania LVDC design for New York in 1909 - but heavily modified to capture something of Crompton's locomotives and Dean's liking for curves and clerestory roofs.

 

Mike

Edited February 24, 2014 by MikeOxon

[gwrbrony13]

According to Alan Peck's "The GW at Swindon Works", Dean wrote to the electrical engineer, Crompton, in 1892 that he had been instructed by the Chairman to discuss the subject of electrical haulage through the Severn tunnel. It seems that Dean showed no enthusiasm for the idea - perhaps he saw it as another potential 'atmospheric railway' type of disaster - and the correspondence fizzled out.  Instead, Dean went on to build the 4-6-0 'Crocodile', to haul heavy freight trains though the tunnel.  But what if the line had been electrified.  What might a Victorian electric 'crocodile' have looked like?

 

There's an article in 'The Engineer' dated June 13th,1890 (I like to keep up to date with my reading), which discusses the potential for development of main line electric traction and suggests some design parameters. (see: http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/4/49/Er18900613.pdf ).  Crompton designed small 4-wheel locomotives for the London underground but these would be inadequate for main-line use.  The Engineer article suggests that a heavy six-coupled locomotive, with 6 foot diameter driving wheels, each directly driven by an electric motor, might provide sufficient adhesion and power for main-line haulage.  In view of the need for heavy freight working on the gradients in the tunnel, .then a double unit would seem appropriate, given the motor power available at the time. Six 150hp motors would provide 900hp and an overall weight of, perhaps, 70 tons, which should do the job fairly well.

 

Possibly, the biggest issue at that time would have been the design of the power station itself - a state-of-the-art requirement, to match the engineering of the tunnel itself.  It could also have been used to power electric pumps, anticipating the modifications eventually made in the 1960s.

 

So, I give you the Dean/Crompton electric 'crocodile':

 

GWR_DeanElectric 800x600.jpg

 

Mike

 

Nice!

Now this would have been a beast!

[gwrbrony13]

According to Alan Peck's "The GW at Swindon Works", Dean wrote to the electrical engineer, Crompton, in 1892 that he had been instructed by the Chairman to discuss the subject of electrical haulage through the Severn tunnel. It seems that Dean showed no enthusiasm for the idea - perhaps he saw it as another potential 'atmospheric railway' type of disaster - and the correspondence fizzled out.  Instead, Dean went on to build the 4-6-0 'Crocodile', to haul heavy freight trains though the tunnel.  But what if the line had been electrified.  What might a Victorian electric 'crocodile' have looked like?

 

There's an article in 'The Engineer' dated June 13th,1890 (I like to keep up to date with my reading), which discusses the potential for development of main line electric traction and suggests some design parameters. (see: http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/4/49/Er18900613.pdf ).  Crompton designed small 4-wheel locomotives for the London underground but these would be inadequate for main-line use.  The Engineer article suggests that a heavy six-coupled locomotive, with 6 foot diameter driving wheels, each directly driven by an electric motor, might provide sufficient adhesion and power for main-line haulage.  In view of the need for heavy freight working on the gradients in the tunnel, .then a double unit would seem appropriate, given the motor power available at the time. Six 150hp motors would provide 900hp and an overall weight of, perhaps, 70 tons, which should do the job fairly well.

 

Possibly, the biggest issue at that time would have been the design of the power station itself - a state-of-the-art requirement, to match the engineering of the tunnel itself.  It could also have been used to power electric pumps, anticipating the modifications eventually made in the 1960s.

 

So, I give you the Dean/Crompton electric 'crocodile':

 

GWR_DeanElectric 800x600.jpg

 

Mike

 

 

[Etched Pixels]

main line electric traction and suggests some design parameters. (see: http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/4/49/Er18900613.pdf ).  Crompton designed small 4-wheel locomotives for the London underground but these would be inadequate for main-line use.

 

From 1905 the  District Railway had pairs of short (26')  BO-BO locos for hauling LNWR trains (and later used for some circle services and to haul LTSR/LMS through services). They rain in pairs back to back and delivered 1600hp off 8 200hp motors. They were actually quite spacious inside, the length as much as anything being the space needed to make the bogies both fit.

 

They were also clerestory roofed

 

Interesting comparison

 

http://lurs.org.uk/documents/pdf09/oct/district_electric_trains.pdf‎

 

(Sorry you'll have to type the URL by hand, rmweb is in stupid mode and keeps randomly splitting it up)

Edited March 3, 2014 by Etched Pixels

[MikeOxon]

Interesting comparison

 

http://lurs.org.uk/documents/pdf09/oct/district_electric_trains.pdf‎

 

(Sorry you'll have to type the URL by hand, rmweb is in stupid mode and keeps randomly splitting it up)

 

Many thanks for the link. I was amazed to see the similarities to my own 'design', which was loosely based on American practice. 

 

I like the idea, described in the article, of running back to the depot with two sets coupled together - totalling 3,200 hp. Quite something for 1908 

 

It was interesting to see the interior too.  I bet those resistor grids got hot at times!

 

Mike

[Corbs]

Maybe this link will work?

[MikeOxon]

Maybe this link will work?

indeed it does.  The problem seems to be that RMWeb adds stray characters on the end of the link - delete those and the original link works

 

Mike

[Guest]

[MJI]

I once managed to convince a load of people that 89,001 was withdrawn to allow it to be converted to a Diesel Electric using a Paxman 18VP185.

[Herr Dienstleiter]

I remember an article to just this effect in Model Railways sometime in the late 70s/early 80s. The author was modelling an Austrian narrow gauge line and couldn't find enough photos to produce an accurate model of a specific prototype, so gave their model a fictitious number (to run on their fictitious line).

 

 I am sorry that I have not come to this thread sooner but the post from Melmouth pretty much describes my position.

 

When I had my H0e layout Molln-an-der-Steyr I had a class 2095 bo-bo diesel on it to work the freight trains - the Steyrtalbahn never had the class because of a critically weak bridge at Waldneukirchen, it might have survived in commercial service had the bridge been strengthened. Mine was painted green (all the rest were orange or orange/cream) and when challenged by someone who knew the Austrian ng I would solemnly explain that it was the unique light weight 2095/1 ... ...

 

My present line was never built by the OeBB (sadly) though it is a postbus route. All my locomotives are numbered consecutively from the end of their class series 298.45, etc., apart from 2091.06 which the 'history' books say was scrapped after an accident whereas we all know it was repaired and sent north to the Muelviertelbahn to work out its days. The high level of standardisation on the Austrian ng means that my line is entirely accurate apart from the little matter of its actual existence.

 

Molln was only more accurate in the sense that it was an actual place and I had photographic evidence for everything on the line ... but I wanted to try my hand at something different in the same thematic area.

[MikeOxon]

 ......... my line is entirely accurate apart from the little matter of its actual existence.

 

Brilliant   I'll remember that phrase for my own layout!

 

Mike

[Catkins]

I once managed to convince a load of people that 89,001 was withdrawn to allow it to be converted to a Diesel Electric using a Paxman 18VP185.

Now that would be a model to see, but using a higher powered engine.

Anyone got a spare body?

[Flying Pig]

...but using a higher powered engine.

 

...or perhaps tw∇?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Flying Pig

[MJI]

Now that would be a model to see, but using a higher powered engine.

Anyone got a spare body?

 

 

They were 4000bhp, it would be so much better than a 67 or that new thing. But apart from 199 HST power cars, express passenger Diesels have not improved since 1955

[PhilJ W]

What about two HST power cars 'cut and shut' to make a double ended locomotive mounted on a pair of six wheeled bogies.

[MJI]

What about two HST power cars 'cut and shut' to make a double ended locomotive mounted on a pair of six wheeled bogies.

 

BR were investigating that idea, but decided a pair of BoBos was better.

[the penguin of doom]

It would look like the class 89 without a pantograph.....?

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

[MJI]

It would look like the class 89 without a pantograph.....?

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

 

And some grills

 

But people really believed me!

[Guest]

I apologise in advance! If GWR Made a shorter version of their 45xx

[cctransuk]

And some grills

 

But people really believed me!

 

..... burger, gammon or steak?

 

Oh - you mean grilles! 

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[MJI]

So who is going to make one?

[28XX]

The idea is that your (fictitious) railway history should justify the proposed design.

[MikeOxon]

And some grills

 

But people really believed me!

Ah -but I have a secret photo of the trials

 

Derived from images by Phil Sangwell licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Edited March 7, 2014 by MikeOxon

[Flying Pig]

Strange, when I saw it back in the '80s it looked like this.

Derived from images by Phil Sangwell licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.